• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report says too many whites, men leading military

This thread is now official boring.
 
Before we come to any conclusions I think someone needs to figure out WHY this phenomenon exists.

But it's so much easier to assume that this is just PC bull**** and that there isn't any actual discrimination going on. No sense going and actually checking.
 
This thread is now official boring.

Minority's make up a smaller portion of the general population. So it would make sense they would make up smaller portions at the top.

This is a stupid proposal, that's what is really boring.

Make up in 2000, it has changed a few percentage points, but not enough to make any real difference for this example...

Whites: 69.13%
Hispanic: 12.55%
Black: 12.6%
Women In The Military: 20%

Now lets look at the article...

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

77% are white males.
8% are black.
5% are Hispanic.
16% are women.

The only disparity I see is with Hispanics. We don't know the level of recruitment within the Hispanic community or the education levels, so even that may be acceptable.

A non issue.
 
Minority's make up a smaller portion of the general population. So it would make sense they would make up smaller portions at the top.

This is a stupid proposal, that's what is really boring.

Make up in 2000, it has changed a few percentage points, but not enough to make any real difference for this example...

Whites: 69.13%
Hispanic: 12.55%
Black: 12.6%
Women In The Military: 20%

Now lets look at the article...

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

77% are white males.
8% are black.
5% are Hispanic.
16% are women.

The only disparity I see is with Hispanics. We don't know the level of recruitment within the Hispanic community or the education levels, so even that may be acceptable.

A non issue.

This is very true and I would just like to point out that there absolutely should be less women in leadership roles than the actual percentage of women that make up the military because women cannot be in certain jobs, including combat roles and (at the present time, due to the very small numbers of women that would even be involved in the trial period) submarines (ntm, no women on subs at the time this study was conducted). Some of those jobs are opening up to women and some may eventually open up to women with time and a possible change to culture, but since many are and were not available during any of this study, then the percentages should be low overall for the numbers to come out right overall. In fact, I'd say that the numbers of women in leadership roles are probably too high in some units/jobs due to too much PC-ism leading to some women being promoted who shouldn't have been. I do think that a lot of women work really hard in their military jobs, I knew plenty of women in the Navy who absolutely deserved the jobs they were assigned and were very good at them. But there are some that do get by and promoted because some of the men above them either did it themselves or gave them enough recognition/awards/whatever to get them promoted because they are women.
 
OMG! Affirmative Action is the last thing we need in our military.
 
It looks like the race and gender parasites want to use the military for some bull **** PC agenda.

What a lame article. While it gives us the percentages of senior officers, it fails to tell us what total individual percentages these groups represent. So what are we supposed to do with the numbers?? WTF?

Not directed at you, James.
 
Here's an idea.

A crazy idea.

But an idea.

How about we put race aside.

And put people in charge that will be good at their jobs... Regardless of their race... And if It happens to be too much one way or the other... Oh well :shrug:

I believe that this is what the military is already doing.
 
We should lift the ban on women serving
 
Just who the hell is promoting affirmative action?

Seems to me that the article in the OP is bitching about there being too many white boys holding leadership positions in the military.

The only reason for such a study, is to say that there needs to be more brothas, bitches and esses assuming those leadership roles. Seeing how it's an all volunteer military and the most hazardous MOS's get promoted faster and farther and white males choose those MOS's in the largest numbers, it must be time to alter the promotion points to favor minorities and females. i.e. Affirmative Action.
 
Seems to me that the article in the OP is bitching about there being too many white boys holding leadership positions in the military.

The only reason for such a study, is to say that there needs to be more brothas, bitches and esses assuming those leadership roles. Seeing how it's an all volunteer military and the most hazardous MOS's get promoted faster and farther and white males choose those MOS's in the largest numbers, it must be time to alter the promotion points to favor minorities and females. i.e. Affirmative Action.

The article presented what the writers perceived to be a problem (whether it actually is or not is another issue that can be debated). In no way did it suggest any solution, much less affirmative action.
 
Here's an idea.

A crazy idea.

But an idea.

How about we put race aside.

And put people in charge that will be good at their jobs... Regardless of their race... And if It happens to be too much one way or the other... Oh well :shrug:

Why not? Because it would be too politically in-correct.

Welcome to the post-Don't Ask, Don't Tell military. If there are too many white, gay males promoted faster and higher than blakcs, hispanics and females, then there will be a problem for the PC crowd.

You asked for it...you got it. Now, live with it.
 
The article presented what the writers perceived to be a problem (whether it actually is or not is another issue that can be debated). In no way did it suggest any solution, much less affirmative action.

The article was, I believe, written using incomplete data. See my analysis of the article in post #2.
 
The article presented what the writers perceived to be a problem (whether it actually is or not is another issue that can be debated). In no way did it suggest any solution, much less affirmative action.

Anyone who suggests that there is a problem, no doubt is at least insinuating a solution.
 
Not sure how to comment on this, unless I have some more information.

1) What is the breakdown of recruits, by race?

2) How does that compare to the breakdown of officer candidates by race?

3) Out of those who apply to be officers, what percentage have a college education? This answer usually should be "all of them", but I would ask this question to clarify.

4) Out of those who apply to be officers, AND BECOME OFFICERS, what is the breakdown by race? (This is a control question, used to reveal racism within the ranks, if it exists, and would be a fairly accurate indicator of whether there IS actual racism within the military, as a whole)

5) Here is the key - What is the breakdown of people with college degrees, by race?

I would submit that, if the answers to these questions are what I would expect them to be, and also knowing that a college education is very, very expensive, then the issue here should not be about possible discrimination in the military, which was implied by the paper, but about the lack of opportunity for the poor to get a good college education. And, knowing that minorities comprise a higher percentage of poor people than rich or middle class persons, we would now have our answer - The report excluded data which would show the real reason that minorities comprise such a low percentage of officers. Therefore, the paper would be flawed, and probably is, because it implies racism when the real culprit is people not being able to go to college due to a lack of money, which would not be the military's fault at all. This would be another issue entirely, which should be debated on it's own merits.

Based on what I have already stated, I would once more submit that, if the answers to the questions I posed are what I expect them to be, then the conclusion of the paper is completely flawed, because it relied on flawed data, or incomplete data, from which to draw it's conclusions.

Allow me to address post #2 and say that the answer to that question is, 100%. A person can't become an officer without a degree and can't make it past the rank of major/O-4 without a masters level degree.
 
All I know is that some governmental statistics folks have waaay too much time on their hands.
 
As for the military being predominantly white, maybe if the liberals didn't spend so damn much time whining about "the poor man dying in the rich man's wars", more minority men would see the military as the career and educational opportunity that it is.

that last piece is worth reemphasis. for minorities coming from poor neighborhoods marked by failing schools; the military is an excellent escape that will teach job skills, discipline, get you started on your education, and give you work experience to take with you elsewhere.

the royal british army proved a fantastic way for poorer scotts to make their way up in the world. other than the general thrust you have outlined (oh you'll be pulled out to die in one of evil george bush's wars), i have no idea why our african american population doesn't view ours the same way.
 
It looks like the race and gender parasites want to use the military for some bull **** PC agenda.

What's next, a study there aren't enough transvestites, and mono-testicled midgets running the military?

You do know what is next though? Not enough gays at the helm. I'd bet a house on it. You know it's coming, and the cherry on top will be the journOlists painting our valiant military as a bunch of homophobes.

.
 
I have a solution.

We'll just have to get a bunch of American military officers of all ranks to start tanning more...
 
What's next, a study there aren't enough transvestites, and mono-testicled midgets running the military?

You do know what is next though? Not enough gays at the helm. I'd bet a house on it. You know it's coming, and the cherry on top will be the journOlists painting our valiant military as a bunch of homophobes.

.

that is exactly what i was going to say.


MSNBC said:
...
five years after the historic lifting of the bigoted dont ask dont' tell ban, gays have yet to find equality in the military, as it turns out those five years were not enough for any of them to reach 4-star rank....​
.
 
Back
Top Bottom